Westminster Politics

Flying high said:
I take it your a supporter of Thatcherism. It also seems you are quite a way down this road, so not much point in me arguing the finer details, though I disagree with almost every part of your post.

What I will say though:
Collaboration is better than competition.
Kindness, caring and community values are more important than getting ahead of some other group.
The world has finite resources and can handle only so much from us as a species before it will fight back, hard. To continue the race to the bottom style of politics is the last thing we need right now.
Click to expand...
Well said. I would not have responded to the other post so eloquently or diplomatically.

Personally I thought the previous post was incorrect and was founded on a self serving ideology.
 
finneh said:
I think their business would fail very quickly so there would be no incentive for them to take that position. Businesses adopting this policy would be at a disadvantage against their competitors so would fail.

It'd be like saying what's my opinion on a theoretical example of Tesco's replacing all products on their shelves with only dog food. People would go to Asda instead and Tesco would quickly disappear.
Click to expand...

'Ladies and gentlemen we got him'

I suggest you stop watching Milton Freeman videos and start googling the american civil rights movement.
 
Last edited:
Volumiza said:
And there’s the rub Stevoc. EVERYBODY needs to realise NOBODY is going to get exactly what they want. It is called compromise and where the Anti Brexit brigade and the ERG fanatics are both going badly wrong.

But, and don’t throw rotten tomatoes at me here, I have to negotiate some pretty hard nosed people in my work and on this point I actually agree with Boris. The ‘Surrender bill’ as he combatively puts it has / will severely hamper our efforts to actually get a deal.

Both the UK and the EU know leaving with a deal is better ... for both sides.

However the EU would rather we not leave and can currently sit back and watch us tear ourselves apart and if we’ve now got legislation that stops no deal then they can play a high stakes game, almost rolling the dice that a) we get another extension and spend more time tearing ourselves apart and then eventually stay in or b) stay in completely. It’s a win / win for them.

Taking no deal off the table completely hamstrings negotiations. I know a lot of you won’t agree with that because it is Boris’s stance but the reality is I would never even think about entering into a negotiation knowing the other party knows I have to take what they offer. It’s ridiculous. I have to be able to walk away and take my business elsewhere to ensure I have a chance of getting the best deal possible. That’s not politics, it’s business.

And my thoughts are, even if we did leave without a deal, the chaos could be so bad for BOTH sides with the amount of trade we do that a deal would appear very, very quickly.
Click to expand...

I've heard the you can't take no deal off the table argument many times mate. I understand it and in other circumstances i might even agree with it but here i 100% do not. First of all as you and/or others have said i'm sure Boris isn't even negotiating so it's not a negotiating tool at this point. For Boris and the boys no deal is the goal.

On using the threat of no deal as a negotiating chip itself i've never agreed with it. It's basically the UK saying to the EU break your laws to allow us to break International Law and shit all over an international peace agreement that we signed to secure peace in a part of our own country, just so we can appease a few headbangers. It doesn't make sense from that perspective and i'm sure it is not a good look to the rest of the world. It wouldn't be a great start to this brave new world of trying to secure international trade deals if it was all achieved by breaking an international deal lodged with the UN. How could anyone trust the UK after that?

On a personal note as someone from Northern Ireland the constant threat of no deal by British politicians to try to get what they want considering the ramifications for The Northern Ireland peace process and the Good Friday Agreement have been at best irresponsible and at worst completely immoral in my opinion. This isn't business it's people's lives and people here are worried about the troubles rearing its ugly head again, this place is far from healed things could kick off again at any minute. There are plenty of radicals on both sides who are just looking for an excuse to rally round to justify violence again. In my opinion the peace and the GFA referendum should have been respected form day one before the 2016 vote was even taken. Northern Ireland should have been placed off limits and the GFA upheld. If that meant NI staying in the CU/SM while the rest of the UK left so be it. And i some hope left that that might still happen.
 
Turns out he's a Lib Dem activist.
 
:lol:
 
esmufc07 said:
Click to expand...

:lol:

So the question is which side of the pond can host the best reality TV impeachment show? 24/7 via digital media powered by 5G.

It's gonna be nuts. How the fcuk did it come to all this?
 
Last edited:
sammsky1 said:
:lol:

So the question is which side of the pond can host the best reality TV impeachment show? 24/7 via digital media powered by 5G.

Its gonna be nutsHow the fcuk did it come to all this?.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that our impeachment proceedings will be an afternoon debate followed by a vote to wrap it up.

Trump impeachment process will still be ongoing next April.
 
The Greater London Authority's monitoring officer - whose job it is to monitor the conduct of the mayor and other members - said it had written to the police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). It said it had referred the PM to the IOPC "so it can assess whether or not it is necessary to investigate the former mayor of London for the criminal offence of misconduct in public office".

It added that it has recorded a "conduct matter" against Mr Johnson which happens when there is information that indicates that a criminal offence may have been committed. But it does not mean that a criminal offence is proved in any way, the GLA's monitoring officer added: "The IOPC will now consider if it is necessary for the matter to be investigated."

The reason the IOPC is involved is because the role of the mayor of London is also London's police and crime commissioner. The IOPC deals with complaints against police forces in England and Wales
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49859321
 
Last edited:
Does it matter? He could drop his trousers at the dispatch box and windmill the opposition front bench, and half the papers and country would still back the fecker
 
Arnott, Hastings and Mate are going to nail the bastard.
 
finneh said:
More often than not the government do the very opposite. The result of protectionism is deaths all around the third world due to the cartel of wealth hoarding via government policy. They're actively promoting the deaths of poor people and we defend them as we've eaten the propaganda that their deaths are in our best interests. The same kind of propaganda used when defending how much worse off we'd all be with the abolition of slavery.

Last year as a random point there were over 26,000 deaths or serious injuries in road traffic accidents. Could you imagine a private company responsible for that level of chaos and death? They'd have gone out of business decades ago. Private industry will circumvent the poor road system by safer autonomous vehicles but it was be hundreds of thousands of deaths too late.

Again I'm not saying the system I'm describing is perfect... But I struggle to see how it wouldn't be better from what I've read.
Click to expand...

:lol: Yes, private industry will fix problems by choice rather than being required to. When seatbelts first came out, all manufacturers offered them as options rather than standard until Saab and Volvo eventually made them standard. Ford offered them as options for about a decade before making them standard. Even once they became standard (usually required by law), most people didn't wear them until they were required to by law. Requiring cars to have seatbelts and people to wear them has saved millions of lives. Car companies would not and could not have accomplished that.

For another example, Boeing knew that its 737-MAX had problems with its software and hardware. It offered additional safety features that would have prevented the two crashes that killed ≈ 350 people. After the first crash, did Boeing recall the planes to have them fixed to ensure there would be no further crashes? No, they lobbied governments not to ground them. After the second crash, did Boeing ground the planes? Again, no, they worked hard lobbying the US FAA and other agencies not to ground them. The only airlines who grounded their 737-MAX fleets were the ones who'd had crashes. Others largely kept their planes flying.

The country with the most significant regulatory capture by Boeing took the longest to ground the planes because more libertarian-minded Republican officials were happy to keep it flying until pressure became too great. Regulatory capture of government by industries does untold damage by allowing private companies effectively to self-regulate.

If private industry is so ethical and responsible, why do companies sell lead paint wherever it isn't banned? We've known lead is harmful for more than a century. Why do fossil fuel companies stick with producing fossil fuels that they've known for decades (because they funded the research!) cause climate change?

It is demonstrably false that private industry would be more effective than government at protecting lives or serving the public good. Governments aren't perfect, but you'd have to live in La La Land (aka Gault's Gulch) to believe that private industry is superior.
 
Sir Matt said:
:lol: Yes, private industry will fix problems by choice rather than being required to. When seatbelts first came out, all manufacturers offered them as options rather than standard until Saab and Volvo eventually made them standard. Ford offered them as options for about a decade before making them standard. Even once they became standard (usually required by law), most people didn't wear them until they were required to by law. Requiring cars to have seatbelts and people to wear them has saved millions of lives. Car companies would not and could not have accomplished that.

For another example, Boeing knew that its 737-MAX had problems with its software and hardware. It offered additional safety features that would have prevented the two crashes that killed ≈ 350 people. After the first crash, did Boeing recall the planes to have them fixed to ensure there would be no further crashes? No, they lobbied governments not to ground them. After the second crash, did Boeing ground the planes? Again, no, they worked hard lobbying the US FAA and other agencies not to ground them. The only airlines who grounded their 737-MAX fleets were the ones who'd had crashes. Others largely kept their planes flying.

The country with the most significant regulatory capture by Boeing took the longest to ground the planes because more libertarian-minded Republican officials were happy to keep it flying until pressure became too great. Regulatory capture of government by industries does untold damage by allowing private companies effectively to self-regulate.

If private industry is so ethical and responsible, why do companies sell lead paint wherever it isn't banned? We've known lead is harmful for more than a century. Why do fossil fuel companies stick with producing fossil fuels that they've known for decades (because they funded the research!) cause climate change?

It is demonstrably false that private industry would be more effective than government at protecting lives or serving the public good. Governments aren't perfect, but you'd have to live in La La Land (aka Gault's Gulch) to believe that private industry is superior.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of that story about the Ford Pinto in the 70's. A defect was found with the car that meant in some collisions it could potentially jam the doors locked and the fuel tank would explode into the passenger compartment and burn people alive. Ford knew about the defect but crunched the numbers and decided that it was cheaper to pay compensation to the families of those that died (allegedly hundreds) due to the safety defect as opposed to halting production, recalling the cars and fixing the defect.
 
I think people just see the party next to the name and tick a box
 
MadMike said:
He's so special, he's a gift to us all

Click to expand...


5th column remainer parliament... is he a member of the Nazi party or something?! The problem is I can’t help thinking that the majority of the electorate would rather see us leave the EU than the UK’s democratic principles being protected.
 
Seen multiple MPs having long twitter battles with folk and Sajid Javid calling out the BBC on twitter. Things are getting a bit wierd.
 
Rams said:
5th column remainer parliament... is he a member of the Nazi party or something?! The problem is I can’t help thinking that the majority of the electorate would rather see us leave the EU than the UK’s democratic principles being protected.
Click to expand...

Majority of leavers? Perhaps. Majority of the electorate? I doubt it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.